I'm not claiming whether or not this is right, or serves the interests of Justice. I'm just pointing out that it appears to me that the defense team is arguing

I'm not claiming whether or not this is right, or serves the interests of Justice. I'm just pointing out that it appears to me that the defense team is arguing more in the court of public opinion, and less on points of law in the court itself. And to be clear: I don't really think they have much of an option - the law around extradition makes this hearing mostly a formality. There are pretty limited grounds in law to prevent it going ahead. Independent of this particular case, I don't like the fact that in UK law the process is mostly a formality for UK to USA extraditions. When the legislation was drafted after 9/11 the claim was that this was a necessary evil and would be used solely against terrorists. Like previous non-terrorist cases against bankers, 'hackers' and others, this isn't a use of the law in the way it was originally intended (well, at least what was said about intentions at the time).